We have groups that use different Bentley products to build parts of large interdisciplinary projects. The groups that use TriForma based products such as Bentley Architecture or Bentley Structural have their files locked down to only being able to be manipulated by TriForma or Architecture/Structural. You can't manipulate any objects within their files with basic Microstation. You get a message in the Message Center that says: TriForma has intentianally restricted changes to this element.
Is this a setting that we can disable? Once a building is modeled with Bentley Architecture, and handed off to the project team, we need to be able to move/rotate/reposition/etc... with basic Microstation. Right now, we're having to go back to the originating group and ask them to make simple modifications for us because they're the ones with the TriForma products.
Thanks...
Mike
If I remember correctly it isn't the file that is locked, it is the TFelements. And I think keyin TFREMOVE from Triforma makes them editable in ustn - but lost for further use in TF/BA.
But what use of a changed 3d-model do you have if you can't run new DEM "calculations"?
Bear point to an important thing > for 8,5 (and 8,9?) you can load Triforma as a "engeneering configuration" and have edit rights to TF forms and run DEM calcs. Not sure if this works all the way, but may be worth investigating.
Also isn't there a license schema that allow you to run different product at different times.
regards / Thomas Voghera
Unknown said: If I remember correctly it isn't the file that is locked, it is the TFelements. And I think keyin TFREMOVE from Triforma makes them editable in ustn - but lost for further use in TF/BA.
Correct. The file itself is just like any other file, it's the elements themselves that contain the dependencies. So if you place MicroStation elements while in a Building product, those elements should behave as though they were placed using plain MicroStation.
Regarding TFREMOVE, that's also correct. It strips off the building intelligence, which includes things like part & family, DG data, as well as the dependencies. In some cases you may have to use the keyin multiple times if there are nested cells. Good for making "MicroStation-able" files, but not so good if those elements need to be reused as building data!
Unknown said: Exchanging info between BA and Microstation is still potentially quite confusing and is an area that Bentley need to work on. I think it's totally unrealistic to expect that architectural practices are going to move from Microstation to BA en mass in one big "upgrade".
Exchanging info between BA and Microstation is still potentially quite confusing and is an area that Bentley need to work on. I think it's totally unrealistic to expect that architectural practices are going to move from Microstation to BA en mass in one big "upgrade".
I would hazard a guess that some companies wont go from MicroSation to BA, as they are more than likely to migrate to Revit. Especially as Revit is more 'user friendly' at the moment, and by the time Bentley sort this BA problem out it will be too late.
Yes, it's a pity that Bentley's agreement with AD did not cover Revit's RVT format. It would have bought a bit more time.
RVT compatibility is very different to the old DWG translation problems. I think the parametric / design intelligence / round tripping stuff will make reverse engineering much harder, and drive more firms into the AD camp.
Not having a Bldg Design vertical will also open up a flank on Bentley's other verticals like structures, where it is stronger. Pretty soon, AD will be able to highlight that its structural apps are more integrated and Bentleys will always lag with incorporating the latest and greatest changes in each Revit release. Hey, your architects are already using Revit, right ? Look at how much you will save in interoperability, training costs.
Will BA need to follow OpenPlant and become an 'IFC schema' editor.. Yikes! ProjectWise, ModelServer overheads?
I would have differ with your opinion.
Our office has made the transition from a 2d enviroment to a Bim Enviroment
pretty seemlessly. All new projects are started with Bentley Architecture and utilize
Doors, Walls, Casework, and Spaces.
Completely in 3d with associated datagroup information.
The users actually pick up drawing in a 3d enviroment rather quickly.
So I must disagree that the Bentley Architecture is not user friendly.
We have found quite the opposite.
dwy.seah@gmail.com wrote the following post at 2010-10-10 1:41 PM: Yes, it's a pity that Bentley's agreement with AD did not cover Revit's RVT format. It would have bought a bit more time. Dominic may have point there.
Dominic may have point there.
Hi tdanner001,
I guess you are luckier than Danny Cooley or me...
I don't want to turn this into another rant about BA's shortcomings. Bentley has already announced that development has begun on a more radical version of BA.
I just hope that they take a Jobsian view of things and get some killer 'next level' functionality in.
Usability: ?? What's your fav feature compared to Revit or ADT ?
Dominic,
My comment was not directed at a comparision of one program
vs. another or particually at any of your comments.
It was in reference to comments that Revit is more "User Friendly"
than Bentley and companies moving from Microstation to a Bim
platform will choose Revit because of this observation.
I was just highlighting our office experience in the transition from
2d based drawing to Bentley Architecture wasn't that difficult.
And our users have picked up the concepts fairly quickly.
Just my two cents worth.
Tom
I'm not really in a position to provide details, but suffice to say that things will be changing: our BIM apps will become more integrated and streamlined, and DVs will be enhanced in many of the ways described below. If you want to know more, make your checks payable to Steve Co... ;-)
Wow. I had no idea such a simple question was going to spark a philosophical debate about the relativity of CAD in a modern society... or wherever that conversation went!
And Steve... what is that? SPAM? Are you advertising in my thread? Whatever...
Maybe I should dumb this down a bit. If I model pipe or cable tray or HVAC using PlantSpace Design Series. I can open the file with Microstation and move the components around. Just move, or rotate. I can't edit the component attributes, but I'm not trying to do that. Just MOVE, or ROTATE. If I try the same thing with TriForma components, I get: "...use TriForma". If my structural designer uses Bentley Structural to place a 10'x10'x2' cube on a level called S-CONC-FNDN, and then later I want to MOVE it a foot to the west, I have to call him to do it because he has Bentley Structural and TriForma. Why can't I MOVE it with Microstation? Once again, not trying to edit the properties of the cube, or destroy the world, or wherever you're going to take the conversation next, just trying to MOVE it.
Mike, my first response did outline why TF based elements cannot be manipulated without a TF based app loaded. This has always been the case with our building apps. PlantSpace Design Series modules generate their elements in a different fashion altogether, so those dependencies were never part of the picture.
Regarding the cube placed in Structural, I would guess that it's not a plain MicroStation element but a TF based slab or similar. Or, that it has a TF part & family assigned. If it is just a plain MicroStation slab with no TF attributes, that happened to be placed using Structural, you should definitely be able to move it while in plain MicroStattion.
An no... my last response was not spam. Just my sad attempt at humor. :-)
Thanks Steve...
You'll have to forgive my frustration... that was a large amount of off-topic verbage to wade through for essentially a non-answer.
I'm sure you're correct about our structurals modeling slabs as opposed to cubes. My specific workflow would be along the lines of: I model a pump with PSDS Equipment Modeler, call my structural guy and tell him I need a foundation. I get started piping the system... (I "magically" inherited a foundation under my pump somewhere along the way). My Mech Engineer now says, move that pump 3' south. I now happen to be drawing a proposal general arrangement on a completely unrelated project in Microstation, so I pop into the first job, move the pump and pipe, but the foundation says: '...use TriForma'. It's a bit irritating.